① Licensing concept · Workload pricing
MWP carves the mobile share out of your rolling four hour peak so a traffic surge does not inflate every MLC product. Still useful on traditional sub-capacity, increasingly weighed against Tailored Fit Pricing.
A discount on mobile driven peak. If you can measure the share.
Mobile Workload Pricing, MWP, is an IBM sub-capacity mechanism that reduces the cost of growth from mobile transactions processed by programs such as CICS, IMS, and Db2 for z/OS. Mobile traffic is spiky, and on the mainframe a spike in the rolling four hour average, the R4HA, sets the peak that every Monthly License Charge product is billed on. MWP identifies the portion of that peak attributable to mobile activity and discounts it, so a surge in mobile transactions does not drag the whole software bill up with it. The work still runs; only the pricing treatment of the mobile share changes.
It came with conditions. MWP historically required eligible mobile defining programs on a supported machine, the zEC12 or zBC12 generation and later, under AWLC, AEWLC, or zNALC sub-capacity terms, plus the tracking needed to measure the mobile share of the peak. For newer estates, IBM has steered customers toward Tailored Fit Pricing, which replaces the monthly peak with an annual baseline and removes the need to carve mobile traffic out at all. MWP and its successor approaches remain relevant where an estate still runs traditional sub-capacity MLC and has a measurable mobile surge worth discounting, so the right answer is to model the options rather than assume one.
Three buyer responses to mobile driven peaks, what each needs, and when it fits. None is universally best; the estate decides.
| Approach | What it needs | Best fit |
|---|---|---|
| Mobile Workload Pricing | Eligible programs, sub-capacity terms, mobile measurement | Traditional MLC estate with a measurable mobile surge |
| Peak shaving | Schedulable workloads and capping discipline | Peaks that can be moved off the busy window |
| Tailored Fit Pricing | A negotiated annual baseline and growth rate | Estates moving off the peak model entirely |
One estate whose monthly peak is partly driven by a mobile surge. The rate per MSU is an illustrative placeholder R; actual rates and discount treatments are product and contract specific and not stated here.
| Measure | Without MWP | With MWP |
|---|---|---|
| Total monthly peak R4HA (MSU) | 500 | 500 |
| Measured mobile share of the peak | 120 | 120 |
| Mobile share adjusted in reporting | no | yes |
| Reported peak MSU for MLC billing | 500 | ~410 |
| Software charge basis | 500 × R | 410 × R |
The mobile surge added 120 MSU to the peak, but only part of it is adjusted under the pricing treatment, bringing the reported peak down to roughly 410 MSU. Every MLC product then bills on the lower figure for the month. The discount is real, but it is only as large as the mobile share you can actually measure and substantiate, which is why the instrumentation, not the eligibility, usually decides the outcome.
The adjustment is only as large as the mobile share you can measure and substantiate. Estates without the instrumentation to track mobile consumption in CICS, IMS, and Db2 leave the discount on the table, or cannot defend it.
MWP applies to specific defining programs under specific sub-capacity terms on supported machines. The conditions are easy to fall outside of, so eligibility has to be confirmed for the actual estate, not assumed from the marketing.
If the mobile peak is schedulable, peak shaving may flatten it for nothing. If the estate is moving off the peak model, Tailored Fit Pricing may remove the need entirely. MWP solves a specific problem and can be effort spent on the wrong one.
What counts as a mobile transaction is a definition, and definitions get scrutinized. An aggressive carve out that cannot be substantiated in the reporting is exactly the kind of thing that surfaces in an audit, so the measurement has to be defensible.
Measure the share, confirm eligibility, then weigh it against the alternatives.
Mobile Workload Pricing earns its place on a traditional sub-capacity estate with a real, measurable mobile surge, and nowhere else. Start by measuring the mobile share of the peak in CICS, IMS, and Db2, because the discount is only as big as what you can substantiate. Confirm the estate genuinely meets the eligibility conditions for the machine generation and sub-capacity terms. Then weigh MWP against the alternatives: if the mobile peak is schedulable, peak shaving may remove it for free; if you are moving off the peak model, Tailored Fit Pricing may make the carve out unnecessary. Keep the classification defensible so it holds up under scrutiny.
This all turns on the peak that the capacity metric bills, so read MIPS and MSU explained for how the peak is built, peak shaving for the scheduling alternative, and Tailored Fit Pricing for the model that replaces the peak. When the choice between these is worth real money, our cost optimization and license negotiation teams model them against your SCRT data.
An IBM sub-capacity mechanism that discounts the mobile driven share of the rolling four hour peak for programs like CICS, IMS, and Db2, so a mobile surge does not inflate every MLC product's bill.
Eligible mobile defining programs on a supported machine, historically zEC12 or zBC12 and later, under AWLC, AEWLC, or zNALC terms, plus the tracking to measure the mobile share. No measurement, no discount.
It depends. MWP still fits a traditional MLC estate with a measurable mobile surge. For newer estates, IBM has steered customers to Tailored Fit Pricing, which removes the peak and the carve out. Model both.
Mobile transactions are identified at the program level and their processor consumption tracked, so the mobile share of the peak can be calculated and adjusted in reporting. The accuracy of that measurement sets the discount.